Okay, the title is harsh... but it is my favorite BoB quote of all times, and I didn't want to break the streak. I do find it ironic that, as the only Democrat in the Bund, I'm the one offering the most lucid argument against the national health care proposals, though...
Jambo raises good points, but none more than the case of a more "moral" America. He is spot-on with his opinions concerning the Culture of Death in this society (and the world in general), as is his "defender of Camelot" who is his aunt and Godmother... but both have perhaps lost sight of what it means to be "moral" in a society such as ours.
I consider myself a moral man, and I work very hard to raise moral children in a more than simply "amoral" world. I think (and I think the Framers would agree with me) that the definition of a "moral society" is not one where the choices of its citizens are limited to ONE, or even a few, person's definition of what is or isn't MORAL. It is a society where each individual has the ability to make moral decisions and take moral actions as they see fit... not necessarily as I see fit. My definition of "immoral" would include drug abuse, abortion, teenage promiscuity and use of contraception, murder, rape, pornography... you get the picture. However, how many would feel the same about such practices and habits as alcohol use, tobacco use, punk music, tattoos and piercings, pre-marital sex, contraception within a marriage, swearing, or participating in military combat... none of which I feel is ALWAYS immoral?
As Jambo said, those of us who experienced the aftermath of Katrina have a far different view of what the Government is capable of... then, now or in the future. However, the other side of that coin is the almost heartbreaking and endless examples of charity, love and kindness that each and every one of us experienced from the hands of ordinary citizens, either directly or indirectly. Right there, we see a stunning example of what works and what doesn't... and the government side doesn't work. Want relief from the devestation of a hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, or forest fire? Don't count on the US Federal government... count on John Q. Public to make sure that there is enough water, shelter, clothing and medicine for those that need it.
When the tsunami hit the Indonesean islands in 2004, the US pledged $350 million in both short and long term aid, and to date, only $78 million has been delivered. Within the first 12 months of the disaster, the American public had delivered $1.1 billion dollars in cash relief, and another $1.6 billion in relief aid in the form of donated medicines, clothing, shelter, food and water. Does anyone here remember who was feeding Titus those first 7 days after Katrina? Not the Feds, and not the National Guard... it was the congregation of Bethel Lutheran Church, Falls IN... or the Newman Center volunteers from Excelsior College in Albany NY... or the Kiwanis Club from Rochester, MN... that who was feeding Titus in that first week after the storm. That's who was providing hospital and emergency care to his neighborhood. That's who was patroling his streets at night, keeping him safe.
Those that cry for greater governmental control of relief and care continually cry that society can't "hope and pray" for the generousity of the common man in times of disaster, yet it is... time after time... the common man that provides far more, and far better, relief than the Feds. A "moral" society is one that would encourage the common man to give more of himself and his ability, and not one that would dictate what the common man MUST give of himself and his ability.
Where is the example of state-provided "welfare" that compares in any way, shape or form with the "welfare" enjoyed by even the poorest Americans? What American family exists that doesn't have recourse to food, medicine, shelter and assistance in every facet of life? Even a family of four, with only one parent who doesn't work at all, has the opportunity to receive $1100 a month in food vouchers, $1600 a month in housing allowances, free access to public transportation, MedicAid or ACCESS cards for doctor's visits, and tax refunds when no taxes have ever been paid... and the opportunity to further an adult education is provided to those that can't pay in all fifty States. All this right NOW... no further reform or additional benefits need be enacted.
My point is, anything more that is to be given to the needy must be taken from those that are already working to better themselves and their families... so we must determine where the balance is. When is taking from Peter to provide for Paul beneficial to both, rather than harmful to both? Will we live in a more "moral" society when I am asked to pay for abortions through my tax dollars to teenagers who can't afford one themselves? Will society be more "moral" when my school taxes fund the teaching of contraception techniques and "freedom of choice" classes that are mandated by the Federal Government? Why would the legalization for the spending of Federal dollars on the surgical transformation of a convicted felon serving a life sentence from a "man" to a "woman" help make America more "moral"?
I'm not making this stuff up. Read the Bills as they have been submitted to both Houses of Congress, and you will find THIS in them! If this constitutes someone's idea of a more "moral" America because it provides "free" sub-par health care compared to what we have now, then I'll vote to keep paying my high insurance fees, even if it means I can't have my new hybrid car or that I have to work at my "less-than-green" job for more hours than I would like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment